Comparing Aquinas And Hume's Refutation Of God

Throughout our course we have read and considered many ideas, however for the duration of this paper I will focus on two core ideas. These are the ideas that God is the first efficient cause and whether God is good. For the duration of this paper I will look at Aquinas’s five ways, Hume’s refutation of God being the efficient cause. Also Dostoevsky’s and Hume’s explanation that God is not good because of the abundance of pain. Throughout the class what I have come to learn and was most impacted by is that God is not what we prescribe him to be in our different religions. Also the arguments that always stood out for me were the arguments of Hume and his skepticism. It is my goal through this paper to explain that God is not the entity

that we prescribe him to be but is rather something that is neither good nor evil but is a force that has arranged the universe in such a manner that it had the potential to become what it is.
Aquinas argues that God is the first efficient cause through five ways. He says through his first way that everything in motion has been put in motion by another thing. If we trace this back then each thing would be moved by another and would go to infinity. But if it goes on to infinity then there would be no first mover and therefore no other things that are moved. Through his second way he argues that for every efficient cause there is an intermediate cause and an ultimate cause. If you were to take away the first cause then there would be no effect so if you take away the efficient cause then there will cease to be any other causes. Therefore if it went on to infinity there would be no first cause and no other effects. Through his third way he argues that in nature there are things that are possible to be and possible to not be. Therefore if everything in nature could at one time not have been then there must have been a time when there was nothing in nature. If there were nothing in existence then there would be nothing in existence now therefore God must have existed. Through his fourth way he argues that in things there are some that are better than others. These things that are better than others act with a maximum, which is their purpose, and also what causes other things to occur. Therefore there must be something that is the best of all things and also is the cause of all things this is God. Through his fifth and final way he argues that there are things in this world that lack intelligence yet still move towards their desired end. But whatever lacks intelligence can’t move towards an end unless there is something that that is directing them towards their end. Therefore there is something that exists that directs all things towards their end this being God. In accordance with this idea that God is the first efficient cause Hume would argue that we simply couldn’t know if that is true. Through his character Cleanthes and Philo he discusses his refutation to the idea that God is the first efficient cause. Cleanthes argues nothing is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that we can conceive implies a contradiction, whatever we can think of to exist we can also think of as not to exist. Therefore no beings non-existence proves a contradiction and so we cannot demonstrate the existence of any being. By saying this Cleanthes says that we can think of anything to be non-existent. Since this is possible we could think that God is non-existent and this would not imply a contradiction to the system. Furthermore, Philo argues that the universe was indeed moved by an efficient cause however; this cause is not necessarily God. He says that the universe is conducted through like necessity. There is a key that orders the universe and that the idea that God is the first efficient cause does not have to be the correct answer. Aquinas’s argument is very convincing in the existence of the efficient cause however; he does not seem to prove that this cause is the God that is worshipped in today’s religions. Hume however implies to say that the first efficient cause does not necessarily have to be God, also that all of the characteristics of Aquinas’s five ways can be found in the law that orders our universe.

This law in that manner could actually be the God that we all think of. Both of these arguments are very convincing in their own way. On the one hand Aquinas logically proves the existence of the efficient cause however this efficient cause is not the God of our religions today. Hume also is very convincing in providing an explanation for the efficient cause however; Hume’s efficient cause is not God and is actually more of a law or a force. Therefore I believe that God is a combination of what Aquinas and Hume determine it to be. This God is indeed an unmoved mover and the first efficient cause, however this God is not the God that is worshipped in religions, it is a force that governs the universe through a mathematical law. This force that determines the natural law through physics and mathematics is the God that I now understand it to be. Now however we must determine whether it is true that God is this force that I have come to the conclusion that it is. If God is the God that is worshipped throughout religions and is a being unlike a force that simply governs

the laws of the universe then we would determine him to be absolutely good. If God is to be determined to be good then that would imply that he is more than just a force but rather something that is closer to what religions worship. However, it is my belief that through the pain and suffering found in the world we can determine that God is not good. We see this in Dostoevsky rebellion and also in Hume’s skepticism. Dostoevsky writes on the evil against children because there is absolutely no excuse for the suffering of children. He goes on to give us multiple examples of the suffering of children that is completely inexcusable. He further argues that the tears of one child that is suffering is unforgivable. His character Ivan says that he does not want justice in the after life for these children he wants justice for them right now and in this life.

For if a God could not grant justice to those in the life that it happens then that is not a God he wishes to worship. Ivan’s argument is incredibly compelling; Hume further elaborates on this and explains why this abundance of pain and suffering is detrimental to a benevolent God. Hume argues that pain is more abundant in this world than that of pleasure. Hume argues that through our experience we recognize that there is more pain in this world then there is pleasure. For this to be the case he argues that God cannot be determined to be benevolent. Once Hume’s Philo determines that pain is more abundant than pleasure in the world he ultimately says that even if pain wasn’t more abundant than pleasure, to claim that God is entirely benevolent it must be proven that there is absolutely no pain or suffering in this world. As long as there is any pain in this world then God cannot be absolutely benevolent. Hume then determines that this does not mean that there is not something that is still considered to be God. By this he determines that there is still something that is known to be God however it is entirely contrary to beliefs religions hold. Once this claim is proven it thus follows that God is

either not entirely powerful or God is not entirely benevolent. Either of these conclusions ultimately destroys the idea of God that is engrained into our religions. Hume’s arguments are incredibly convincing because he appeals to our experience as human beings. He does not argue with abstract ideals such as faith but concrete evidence and experience that all humans can prescribe to. In this manner Hume has the most convincing arguments and the most compelling. His arguments have their strengths in the way they appeal to our experience and also that they remind us that we use experience and concrete evidence for all aspects of our lives, religion should be no different. Now that it has been determined that God is not entirely benevolent it thus follows that God is not the being in which many religions believe him to be. God is therefore an amoral force that has arranged the parts of the universe to act in accordance with one another ultimately creating what is known as the universe. Furthermore, I now agree with Marx that religion may be the opiate of the masses. Once I developed an understanding of God and conformed this understanding to my own beliefs I now understand what Marx was speaking on. We see incredible injustice done to those that are lower in status. Whether it is from the increased tax breaks for the rich, the increased incarceration rate for non-violent crimes, or the increased dysfunction found in Government. Nothing will begin to change because these religions teach obedience, blind faith, and to live their lives in pursuit of an after life that isn’t guaranteed. Religion may have some benefits in its moral ethics however, it is allowing people to live in an illusionary state that will ultimately pacify them and allow for increased dysfunction.
This class has ultimately shaped my beliefs quite heavily. Before this class I really had no concept of God, I wasn’t sure whether I believed in him or not. However, now that I have taken this class I have some beliefs and a more definite understanding of how I interpret God to be. Throughout this class I have been swayed and convinced by many different arguments. However, the arguments that ultimately convinced me and gave me a more in depth understanding of what God is and how I think about God was Hume. His arguments were the most convincing and enthralling, ultimately because they were conveyed by reason and experience. The more abstract ideals like faith and obedience really deterred me, I do not leave any other part of my life up to blind faith and obedience why should religion and God be any different? I have now come to the conclusion that God is an amoral force that has arranged the parts of the universe to act in accordance with one another. I therefore agree with Aquinas’s five ways in the sole fact that this force is the first efficient cause and must exist or else nothing else could have existed. However, this force is not the God that Aquinas ultimately comes to the conclusion that he is but rather it is what Hume attempts to convey in his skepticism on the problem of evil. That God is not a benevolent creature but is in fact the efficient cause of the universe and is an amoral force that has created this universe much like the law of mathematics and physics.